This article was published by The Energy Mix on Nov. 26, 2024.
By Tova Gaster
Vancouver City Council has postponed a controversial, high-profile vote by one day to accommodate 142 speakers who signed up to share their views on whether the city should rescind its ban on gas hookups in new buildings.
On Tuesday November 26, council heard proposals from city staff about the implications of the reversal, expecting to cast a vote. Outside City Hall, advocates for the gas ban, including members of Women Transforming Cities, For Our Kids Vancouver, and Dogwood BC, rallied with banners and drums to oppose the bylaw change.
“Let’s put gas in the past, heat pumps for all!” attendees chanted.
City Proposes Two Paths For Developers
At the meeting, city staff presented [pdf] a report following from the council’s July vote to reinstate gas for new builds. Staff propose offering developers two paths for new buildings: Path 1 does not include gas, building to the highest level of the British Columbia Zero Carbon Step Code (ZCSC), while Path 2 allows gas for heating and hot water, but prioritizes energy efficiency through building envelope requirements.
“Path 1 offers the best outcome for climate, while Path 2 will increase annual carbon pollution,” said Patrick Enright, City lead for the small, existing and new developments team.
If all new developments take Path 1, it would decrease Vancouver’s carbon footprint by 15,900 tonnes per year by 2035, estimates the report. If all developments took Path 2, the footprint would grow by 65,100 tonnes annually by 2035—equivalent to adding 16,000 cars on the road, Enright said. City staff predict developers would pursue a mixture of Path 1 and 2, or gas and no gas.
Councillor Brian Montague had raised concerns in July that the gas ban increased costs for builders. But city staff emphasized that neither path will reduce costs, speed up permits, or improve heating.
They added that engagement with the construction industry found that many have concerns about Vancouver’s regional reputation as a sustainable buildings leader, which reinstating gas could jeopardize. However, others advocated for builders to maintain options about their energy path.
The second path “seems like a step backward on climate and doesn’t save money,” Councillor Pete Fry said after the presentation.
To hear all 142 registered speakers, Mayor Ken Sim motioned to defer the vote to Wednesday, Nov. 27.
Sim had cast the tie-breaking vote in July, when council voted 6-5 to rescind the 2020 city bylaw banning gas hookups in new low-rise buildings by 2025. The reversal followed “behind-the-scenes” discussions involving senior city officials with industry ties, reported Postmedia, raising transparency and potential conflicts of interest concerns.
A coalition of construction industry leaders, environmental advocates, small businesses, and medical professionals opposed the walkback of one of the city’s flagship climate policies. Advocates for the transition off gas say the reversal is a step backward from other Canadian jurisdictions like Quebec, which recently banned new gas heating in buildings by 2040.
“If we know we need to decarbonize society, why would we keep adding to the problem by building new buildings that we have to decarbonize later?” asked Paige Gorsak, an organizing manager at Dogwood BC.
Gas Warms the Atmosphere, Pollutes Homes
Gas in buildings harms health and reduces air quality. Electric heating systems, such as heat pumps, are also equivalent in cost, on average, according to research from the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada.
“It’s not only a climate issue, but a health and cost of living issue,” Sunil Singal, a campaigner at Stand.earth, told a Dogwood event held to organize against rescinding the gas ban.
Research suggests natural gas is just as harmful as other fossil fuels, if not worse. A new study finds that the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be up to 33% greater than that for coal.
While natural gas releases less climate pollution when it’s burned, fugitive methane leaks in gas extraction and transportation pack a huge atmospheric warming punch that 2023 research suggests is worse than previously thought.
Buildings are also often the biggest source of carbon emissions in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
Lobbyists Turn Up The Heat, Local Businesses Respond
According to Dogwood BC’s Gorsak, rescinding the natural gas ban would make Vancouver the first city to reintroduce a known pollutant into homes.
But a Postmedia investigation found that the vote could be good business for Mayor Ken Sim’s senior advisor, who owns two private natural gas companies.
In an interview with CBC, Montague attributed his support for the rollback to homebuilder choice, and reducing red tape to make increasing housing supply cheaper.
According to construction industry leaders, however, emissions requirements and heat pumps aren’t the culprit for expensive housing.
“Energy and emissions requirements are not significant drivers of new housing costs; many other factors affect project costs and timelines,” said Mark Bernhardt, CEO of Bernhardt Contracting and president of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association of BC, in a release issued by Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (ZEIC).
Rather, policy uncertainty—such as the ban reversal—increases costs for homebuilders.
Bernhardt is one of hundreds of homebuilders and small business owners who signed a letter in October calling on Vancouver to restore its gas ban. Dozens of construction industry leaders sent a similar letter.
“Burning fossil fuel in homes is like smoking—once considered normal, now clearly harmful to our health,” Chris Hill, Principal of B Collective Homes, said in the ZEIC release. “For the last over five years, we’ve built homes entirely free of gas or fossil fuels, demonstrating that electrification is not only possible but scalable. With thoughtful design and minimal effort, we can lead the way to healthier, all-electric homes that benefit both people and the planet.”
Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Tuesday, November 26, with news of the deferred city council vote.
Be the first to comment